About your Search

20121001
20121031
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
, you have to do it less for us to be able to sustain where we are. >> a lot of it is that for the last 40 years or so we changed the dialogue, not that my version is better than yours but the essential belief that government isn't right. the person that believes that government is a workable mallable instrument has to fight uphill against the resistance to that. whereas in the 1930s during the 1930s and dust bowl, we've been able to summon a sense of shared sacrifice to get things done, that we're all going to have to give up something and democracy is the politics of the half loaf as george will sometimes says. nobody gets everything. i think when we get to that stage, when we suddenly realize we're going to have to give it up. it's always given up in the back rooms but this take no prisoner, my way or the highway kind of attitude just shows an incredible lack of the awareness of what it means to govern in the united states. >> and what government should do to help people, particularly in a distressed economy, what the limits of that are before you start infringing on personal freedom
. take us behind the scenes of how material comes together off news to make it onle colbert report. >> why don't you ask the seven herbs and spices or recipe for coca-co coca-cola. >> how do you get together and decide the stoortry for the day? this is the next two weeks, we have some idea what we're doing. today i had a good idea about my first act and second act and some idea for one script next week. i'm have objectives -- this is an old board. i have emily bassil on to talk about the supreme court slate. not a word of that is written. i've got one script for monday and idea for tuesday and everything else is a coin toss from here on out. >> does the outcome of this election change anything significantly? >> well, sure, sure. i'm not ralph nader. i don't think there's no difference. there is a difference. i don't know what the difference is though because i think there are -- there is a possibility that obama would be say more aggressive, a more aggressive reformer or changer in the second act of his presidency. and i don't know how mitt romney would govern. he might govern as a
that here we are, at the end of two long wars and i see no great impulse in the u.s. military to soberly and seriously reflect on those lessons. >> we will take a break here and be back with more from tom ricks and michael gordon talking about wars and america's national security policy in the future. >>> and we are back with journalist tom ricks and michael gordon. one of the questions i heard raised this week which i think is so interesting, talking about national security policy moving forward, are we going to reach a point of a kind of reset where we figure out some middle ground between a commitment of american ground forces to war and sitting on the sidelines? and if you take a conflict like syria, we seem to be on tpting the latter because our leadership can't figure out what does all-in mean? we want to own it or lead from behind, which is it? do we have anything approaching some consensus about what a reset looks like? >> well, i don't think there's a consensus in the united states or even between -- despite the closure somewhat between the two candidates' positions, between gov
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)